I don't quite understand your question - proponents of Evolution don't believe that evolution should be eliminated in schools. It's already being taught in biology classes because of the tremendous scientific evidence supporting it.

Creation myths, on the other hand, don't have any scientific basis at all. There's nothing to support the idea that life, the earth, and the universe were created by a supernatural power. That includes Intelligent Design as well. Creationists can present their ideas in scientific-sounding lingo, but there is no real scientific evidence supporting their claims.

Creationism is supported by faith. Evolution is supported by facts and logic. Evolution is supported not only by biology, but also by what we know in other areas of science - physics, geology, chemistry, etc.

Do the proponents of Evolution Theory know for sure why this theory must be eliminated in all schools arond the world?

It shouldn't. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution explains it. Virtually all biologists accept it. All evidence found to date supports the theory of evolution. In 150 years no one has been able to falsify the TOE. We successfully apply the theory of evolution in industry, farming, raising animals and in medicine. The theory of evolution is absolutely vital to modern mankind.

You have only to look at the fossil record to see that evolution does occur. The fossil record of human evolution is a good example. There is clear evidence of hominoid species development over the past several millions of years, leading to present day Homo sapiens.

Creationists can't adequately explain the fossil record, other than waving their hands and muttering about the wrath of God and the Flood.

Evolution, on the other hand, offers a perfectly reasonable explanation of the fossil record. Creationists have trouble with evolution because it contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible. A literal interpretation of the Bible is full of errors and historical inaccuracies.

JNebrska man was dake. Piltdown man was a hoax. Java man is disproven. Neanderthals where just humans

Let's review these examples. The following information is found in the TalkOrigins website.

Nebraska Man - a fossilized tooth discovered in Nebraska by paleontologist Henry Osborn in 1922. Osborn thought the fossil was from an early species of hominid in North America. He even gave it a name - Hesperopithecus haroldcookii . Five years later, Osborn's colleague William King Gregory concluded that the tooth most likely came from an extinct peccary (a type of pig). Osborn, himself, began to have doubts about his original interpretation before 1928. Nebraska Man was never widely accepted during it's brief history by the scientific community before it true nature was reconized.

Piltdown Man - Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus dawsoni) was discovered in England by an amateur, Charles Dawson, between 1908 and 1912. It consisted of parts of a surprisingly modern-looking skull associated with a surprisingly apelike lower jaw. Later fragments found in 1913 and 1915 also seemed to have a mixture of ape and human characteristics, and mostly quelled suspicion that the original bones were from two unrelated creatures. In 1953 Piltdown was discovered to be a hoax, consisting of a modern human skull and an orangutan jaw. Well before then, Piltdown had become a puzzling anomaly when compared to all other hominid fossils, and the scientific community was relieved to be able to forget about it.

An embarrassment to the paleontological community? I'm sure it was! :0)

Java Man - disproven? Not from what I read. Java Man, discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1891 was the remains of skullcap with a brain size of about 940 cc. The larges gorilla skull size is about 700 cc.

Where do you see that Java Man has been disproven?

Neanderthals - Just human? True.

From TalkOrigins - Actually, Neandertals are usually classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a subspecies of humans, in recognition of consistent differences such as heavy brow ridges, a long low skull, a robust skeleton, and others. (Some scientists believe the differences are large enough to justify a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis.) Evolutionists last century claimed that these were real differences between us and Neandertals, and they were right. Creationists claimed that the differences were a result of various diseases or environmental factors, and they were wrong.

Is science always right? NO! But science does have the nice quality about it to weed out the mistakes over time. Some mistakes, such as Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man, are embarrassing, to be sure. But these don't discredit other real hominid discoveries - Australopithecus, H. habilis, H. erectus, etc.

When looking at the hominid fossil record, I don't think you can deny that there is a more human-like progression of fossils as you travel from millions of years ago to the present.

To sign off quoting a psalm is a bit weird. It just shows everyone how closed your mind is and how much they need'nt bother arguing. Let's get real here... It appears that the Religious side has a need for the "creationist' theory. They need an idol... they need something to cling to. Why would they bother idolising a figure with light skin and eyes... the image widely adored... ? when it's obvoius that jesus (if he existed) would have looked more like an arab with dark skin and eyes

Are you going to comment on your mistakes? Nebraska man and Piltdown man were proven false by real scientists, they do nothing to disprove the theory of evolution. Java man has not been disproven and Neanderthal man is not just human.

Like Piltdown man, Java man has fooled the scientific community. This 'Man' was constructedf rom a part of a skull, and part of a leg bone found a distance apart. Later the man who had discovered the remains realized that the skull was human and the leg bone part of a large Gibbon ape.

You're misrepresenting the facts. Java Man (which consisted of a partial skullcap) was one of the earliest specimens found of the hominid Homo erectus. The femur bone, which was found some distance away from the skullcap, was not part of the same individual (being that of a modern human).

The teeth were likewise not related to the Java man skullcap - being those of an orangutan, most likely.

That Dubois likened the skullcap to that of a giant Gibbon is something that Creationists jump on and try to discredit the Java Man discovery. The true fact is - Java man is currently classified by paleoentologists as Homo erectus. There have been other fossil finds in Java that back this claim up. That Dubois likened his discovery to a giant Gibbon doesn't mean that's what it was. Dubois rightly stated that the fossil indicated an individual with a brain size much larger than any gibbon - having a brain size 10 times that of a gibbon.

I would suggest you read some of the history behind Java man from a repudible source rather than from some out dated Creationist rant.